tv [untitled] March 21, 2011 1:30pm-2:00pm PDT
case to follow, but i am so appalled of ms. baker laying out here -- she knew i was getting ready to speak. this woman who came out here and spoke to say she is with the mayor's office of economic redevelopment. it is the redevelopment agency. you hear what you call double dipping. if this committee has anything about this before -- let me say i'm going to meet with the mayor's office of economic development, the acting director, and i'm going to have fred black will come out to the western addition. have you ever been down and experienced what they called the urban renewal? do not pass anything that has anything with that giant elephant in the room, which is the redevelopment agency. you will be held in contempt later on with the lawsuits that will come by.
they are going to have a meeting tonight. i welcome you to the west bay at 6:00. that same agency you talked about is coming to the community. they come in here with this surge. bob ♪ but i want to know who who's in control the redevelopment of i'm going to have to sue and make a settlement all of the money they spend you do not know where it went and a no accident -- it ain't no accident and it is all gone they left the black folks all alone ♪ let me just say one thing. hold up until we development comes to the western addition to tell us what they did. i am telling you all --
♪ it is city hall here do not do this. i beg of you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. let me ask you a question based on what daniel landry asked -- i'm sorry, public comment has already been close. ok, if colleagues with a loud, let's reopen public comment -- if colleagues will allow. >> thank you. in the president of the fillmore jazz community benefits district. first of all, i want to applaud wantmirkarimi -- a plot supervisor -- want to applaud supervisor mirkarimi.
there's definitely a need for this type of legislation in our neighborhood. many of the buildings are blighted, and it would help very much to stimulate the area with more small business activity, so i would urge you all as a committee to please forward this legislation to the full board so that we can stimulate our area and have more productive businesses that can stay active within our community, not just restaurants, but clothing stores. if you walk down fillmore, you will see a transition period there's a lot of activity when you pass bush. we want that same vibrancy that goes from bush to jackson to go down to mcallister, so we urge you to support this legislation. supervisor mar: thank you. with that, let's close public comment. questions? supervisor cohen. i just wanted to ask the
question that daniel landry posed. what kind of community involvement from regular residence has there been? there have been criticisms of past processes, having regular community folks be involved in the development of the different jazz community benefits districts and other processes, but how are people being involved right now in the process? >> my understanding is that the community was involved in the planning for this particular legislation. our community staff person is not here today to comment on that, but that is my understanding from speaking to her. i know that the community benefits district was involved and other regions were involved from that section, and some of this came at the urging from those merchants and residents from that area. supervisor mar: ok, and it sounds like projects like the artisan marketplace across the
street or the face lift of the store fronts and a lot of these different parts are moving forward with the strong support of merchants but also residents from the area. >> yes, that is my understanding. andrea is not here. she was working on those specific things you just mentioned, but that is my understanding. supervisor mar: great. thank you so much. are there any other questions? can we move this forward without objection? without objection. thank you. would you please call item two? >> item two, or in its amended the planning code establishing other requirements and procedures across the district. supervisor mar: thank you.
>> if i could just give a brief introduction to it. andrea baker will not be speaking on this, just to clarify, but i know there are a number of people from the public who would like to. the ordinance before the committee creates a comprehensive set of street frontage controls for the city's residential district. currently, street frontage controls in the planning code vary greatly from one residential district to the other. rto controls are currently the most complete, but partial controls exist in controlsrh and rm districts. -- exist in certain rh and rm districts. this limits parking two 1/3 or less of street frontage, and individual go raj -- individual garage entrance is to 1 foot or less. -- entrances to one for less.
supervisor mar: thank you. ms. rodgers from planning. >> good afternoon, supervisors. this piece of legislation is a little bit different than the last one. whereas the last one was a specific, targeted piece of legislation, the piece of legislation before you now is broader and bolder and raises the bar for design in the city. the proposed ordinance is amended or repealed in 28 separate portions of the planning code, and each is described in the materials before you. we went over this in some detail at the planning commission hearing. i will give you an overview now. i would summarize the proposal as helping to regulate the ball standards in building codes in the city by counting parking towards f.a.r. limits. it also works to limit the appearance and dominance of
garages. it would require that new large parking facilities be constructed in a way to be more easily converted in the future. establishes ground floor controls in industrial districts, which we did not have previously. it removes parking minimum requirements. it allows for the zoning administrator to reduce parking requirements when certain conditions are met. and it applies street frontage controls to what we call limited corner commercial uses in residential districts, so those are the little corner stores. also applies to formulary tell requirements, and allows some awnings that will also be permitted in our smallest neighborhood commercial districts. it allows users in the rc district that would be allowed on the ground floor, and this was from our previous planning
district recommendation in december. it also allows commercial uses, the corner stores, in our higher density commercial districts. finally, it does add procedures for buildings over 50 feet in height and incorporates alleyway controls into buildings there. on behalf of the planning commission, we recommend approval of this ordinance as it is currently drafted. supervisor mar: thank you. i think there was mention that the small business commission heard and recommended approval of part of the ordinance as well. colleagues, do you have any other questions? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. i have three cards, and if anyone else would like to speak, please come forward.
>> hello, supervisors. as i think you know, in san francisco, 800 people a year are hit by cars. just this week, three people were killed by cars, so pedestrian safety is a high priority for the city and should increase in priority. this ordinance is one step toward that. by reducing driveway size and keeping driveway's away from corners, this ordinance will improve conditions in san francisco for pedestrians -- by keeping driveways away from quarters. it will allow more space for street trees that our city needs and more space for the parked cars that can form a buffer
between pedestrians and car traffic. this will also make it easier to create quarter bulbouts, shortening the crossing distance for pedestrians and enabling drivers and walkers to see each other more clearly. for these reasons, walk san francisco is supporting this ordinance. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. san francisco bicycle coalition. i bring you our full and strong support and thank livable city and supervisor mirkarimi for crafting this. as the city aspires to become more walkable and viable, this sort of control is necessary. this is very important. we have been very careless with the use of our sidewalks and street faces, and this measure
will go a long way to bringing a more gracious, walkable, bikable san francisco. i'd bring you the support of the sfbc, and i hope you will bring your support as well. >> good morning. big planning day for me. we had the pleasure of working on this ordinance. you last year brought forward a similar ordinance for mixed use districts, and a lot of this is taking a lot of the best ideas that came out of the eastern neighborhoods in terms of controls in the way that the building meets the street. as i was talking about earlier, the planning code previously paid a lot of attention to the uses of buildings, what type of use and how dense, etc. we'd hate, i think, too little attention to the way buildings create great streets and safe streets.
this is going to require that buildings be better neighbors. there's a lot of aspects to the ordinance. one of the things i wanted to point out was often, we hit conundrums in public policy, and preservation is one that came to mind where people say that on the one hand, you want to preserve buildings. on the other hand, you want to make them easier to adapt and reused. one of the things this ordinance does is it makes that an easier thing to do. we took a bunch of controls, exceptions for things like saving an historic tree, or if you were changing the use in an historic building and it would have required a driveway or garage. you can now get those exceptions administratively. we took time, paperwork, and we took a burden out of doing that. we think it is a positive move for the city, very much in keeping with all of the plans we
have done, and we would love to have your support today. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this item? mr. paulson. >> ♪ there is a safe district for us on bicycles safe place for us time to ride and time to be safe. fix it up please fix this place somewhere, some district, somehow you'll fix it up all tehe way and you will make the district all better today somewhere, some way, some bicycle place ♪ supervisor mar: thank you.
anybody else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward without objection? great, thank you. so moved. please call item 3. >> item 3, ordinance adding chapter 22 the environment code to establish a three-year pilot program to reduce waste in the distribution of yellow pages phone directories. supervisor mar: thank you. and for this item, we have our president, david chiu. there are a number of crops being set up, and we have about 35 people signed up to speak. before we start public comment, i would just ask people to try to be safe in your comments so that we can move this along as quickly as we can. president chiu. supervisor chiu: thank you, mr.
chair, and, colleagues, i want to thank you for your consideration of a proposal today that is about yellow books, about the environment, about how we clean up our neighborhoods, and consumer choice. this is a piece of legislation that rhino many folks all around the city have often thought about in recent years when we noticed the huge number of plastic-wrapped in yellow pages dumped on doorways, lobbies, the apartment buildings, and on streets. the pictures you have in front of you are pictures of my neighborhood, actually, my block. but these are ubiquitous images around the entire city. in the middle of last year, i asked my staff to start researching some of the facts around the situation involving the yellow pages, and we learned some inconvenient truths related to this topic, related to the environment. the yellow pages industry distributes 1.6 million yellow pages to san francisco every year. as we know, the population of our city is a little less than a
hundred thousand individuals, so that is two redundant yellow page books for every man, woman, and child in the city. put a different way -- we have 330,000 households, so that as five redundant yellow page books per household. if you stack these books on top of each other, is almost 300 transamerica pyramids and to end -- end to end. to dispose of this means we are disposing of 7 million pounds of waste, and the hidden costs of disposing just your yellow pages is estimated to be at least $1 million a year, paid for by san franciscans. consumer choice -- right now, consumers in san francisco have no choice in deciding whether to receive the yellow pages. every resident in the city is forced to get multiple, redundant, unwanted copies. the problem we are talking about is the mass and deliver it over distribution.
the legislative proposal we are considering is simple -- it would allow distributors to distribute and deliver yellow pages to every san francisco resident, to distribute them to anyone who wants them, anyone who wants a yellow pages should be able to get one. the industry has engaged in a bit of a smear campaign to refer to our legislation as a ban. it is not. streeters can provide yellow pages to anyone who requests one. they can contact residents via e-mail, direct mail, telephone. they can lead ups-like stickers on your door way asking you to check whether you want one. they can distribute in supermarkets, libraries, restaurants, in any place that there's someone that allows them to distribute in larger quantities. the ordinance also requires the city to undertake a robust outreach effort on different ways in which people can get their yellow pages, with a
particular emphasis for seniors, are disabled, and anyone who needs help. a recent poll showed that 87% of the public supports a policy whereby they received a phone book only if they request it. i think this is a common-sense proposal, and i thank the individuals that have been working with us on as proposal, including many members of the city family. what i would like to do at this point is ask a couple of representatives of various city departments to make comments about the legislation, starting with the department on the environment. i would like to invite of the director of the department of environment to make a presentation. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the director of the san francisco department of the environment, and the department is pleased to have the opportunity to provide the land use committee with our perspective on the yellow pages distribution pilot project ordinance before you today. we support this legislation because it will help us to forward our city's 0 with goals.
san francisco, as you probably know, is the nation's top recycler. san francisco recycles over 1.6 million tons of material in 2008, which is twice the weight of the golden gate bridge. we said less than 600,000 tons to landfill, which is our lowest the disposal rate on record. san francisco's success is due in part to the comprehensive easy-to-use programs we have set up with our partner, recology, and also the enthusiastic reception of the residence. but the enthusiastic success in policies enacted by the board of supervisors over the years that set up. the board of supervisors established a goal of obtaining 75% landfill diversion by 2010 and zero waste by 2020, which is critical to keeping us focused on the end results. we have exceeded our short-term goals, and we have reached a 77%
landfill diversion rate. san francisco then enacted a construction and demolition ordinance that requires a version of materials from construction projects. we were also the first city in the nation to enact a mandatory composting and recycling ordinance, which requires everyone in the city to recycle and compost. these policies have been very successful. however, recycling itself is not a total 0-waste solution. when we talk about the three r's -- reduce, reuse, recycle -- source reduction is the highest principle. in making sure that everything that can be recycled is recycled, it is also critical to reduce the size of the overall waste stream. the city has taken action in the past to limit the amount of problematic materials in our waste stream. materials that represent an egregious waste of resources and a problematic in the recycling
process. san francisco restricted the distribution of plastic bags at supermarkets and drugstores. alternative bags are readily available, as plastic bags contaminate our recycling system. similarly, we restricted the distribution of styrofoam food containers that food service establishments because there are recyclable and/or, possible alternatives -- compostable alternatives. this will reduce waste and reduce the size of san francisco's overall waste stream. also, as you will see shortly, phone books are problematic in the recycling/sorting process. phone books are a valuable information resource, and like all resources, they should be treated with care. this ordinance will increase the value of all phone directories as an information tool by distributing them only to people who use them and will help us get one step closer to our goals.
i like to call in a few department of the environment staff to comment on a few aspects of the legislation. first, you will hear from our residential zero-waste coordinator. he will talk about the impact of telephone books in the waste stream. then you will hear from our climate action a coordinator. she will discuss the greenhouse gas implications of this ordinance. finally, you will hear from our public outreach manager to comment on the ways we're planning to get the word out about this legislation. i will pass it on now to kevin. >> thank you, supervisors. ashley, a supervisor -- actually, supervisor chiu discussed this already, the staggering number of phone books delivered in our city. i believe the valley pages are being delivered to people's
doors right now. the at&t pages were delivered in december. there is now the second round, and that is how we get to the to we will books for every person in san francisco. our department and the team fully supports the legislation as a critical part of obtaining our 0 with a goal -- our zero- waste goal. it is about $300 a ton for that material to be recycled or landfill, so that the total cost to the ratepayers is over $1 million. as well, in our recycling system, you are going to see a little video here. what you are seeing there,
actually -- i'm trying to get the video part to work, but in the center of that picture is a phone book. this is the sorting system that our primary facility for recyclables. they sort of sit in the middle and do not move up or down, while all the other materials in our system have to keep moving along through the sorting system. because of this, we have had to add a separate conveyor line with have to pick the phone books of separately and put them on to an additional line we had to add. this is one of the things that adds to the cost of processing phone books in san francisco. sorry that the video did not quite work. but this is the kind of thing that melanie was talking about as a problematic material in our system, and these are the kinds of things we are taking steps to
reduce or eliminate if possible. thanks. >> hello. my slide is really boring, so i'm mostly going to talk to you a little bit. in the climate coordinator with the department of environment. san francisco has already committed to goals and policies to address climate change by reducing our carbon footprint. these goals are in line with the state bowls. in many cases, they go farther. additionally, last year, the city and county of san francisco was directed by our local air district to specifically include emissions from waste in our greenhouse gas inventory and climate plan and let her hear from the air district, which i will submit to you all today. then, -- this piece of
legislation before you supports these municipal, state, and regional goals that we have a climate-wise. the second question i usually get is -- how much carbon is this going to say? the big savings here in carbon reductions actually comes not from the phone books being recycled, which is good -- better than going to landfills -- but from them not been produced at all or fewer of them being produced. in fact, if we were able to not produce these phone books, we would save about 20,000 tons of carbon each year. those numbers are in line with our city's standard as greenhouse gas system and were developed in support with big league. those are numbers to give you some context of what that means. that is about the same of 2000 census the president's going carbon neutral. so it is pretty significant. -- that is about the same as 2000 san francisco residents going carbon neutral.
no level of aborted emissions should be considered too small to merit action. this is particularly true, as the supreme court noted, that agencies and legislatures do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. instead, they whittle away at them over time, referring to preferred approach is. as circumstances change, developing a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed. this yellow pages distribution program represents exactly that kind of careful detailed policy making that is necessary in every sector of our economy in order to address the enormous challenges of climate change. we will also be submitting that letter to you for review. finally, i think the most important aspect of this legislation is that it will help us transition away from an economy that is really based on resource-intensive nature, using our supplies of water, would,
fuel, and energy, to one that is modernized in a virtual system of exchange of information. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. the elegant thing about this ordinance is that anybody that wants the yellow page has the right and ability to get one. and the city can help get the word out about the many ways available to arrange to have one delivered to you or picked one up. the city can provide outreach to let residents know how to deal of pages in the number of ways, including assertions in regular publications. we can also dedicate buildings as thick of locations such as branch libraries, recreation centers, and the city hall. there are approximately 180,000 senior citizens in san francisco, and the city serves the neediest 20,000 or so through senior centers and mail through senior centers and mail deliveries, so out reach to the